Meeting Analysis: Findings from Research and Practice.

Abstract

Meeting analysis, that is the study of meeting expenses, productivity, processes, and outcomes, is relevant to GSS practice and research for several reasons. Many reviews and surveys reveal that meetings dominate workers' and managers' time and yet are considered to be costly, unproductive and dissatisfying. Studies show that meetings are essential and that the number of meetings and their duration has been steadily increasing. Studies of managers and knowledge workers reveal that they spend between 25%-80% of their time in meetings, suggesting that meetings are an important part of one's working life. Estimates of meeting expenses range from costs of $30 million to over 100 million per year to losses between $54 million and 3.7 billion annually! Self estimates of meeting productivity by managers in many different functional areas range from 33%-47%.

Full text

Meeting Analysis: Findings from Research and Practice
Nicholas C. Romano, Jr.
Assistant Professor of MIS
Business Administration Hall Suite 313
The University of Tulsa
600 South College Avenue
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
918-631-3992 Voice
918-631-2164 Fax
Nicholas-Romano@UTulsa.EDU
Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr.
Regents and Soldwedel Professor of MIS, Communication & CS
Director Center for the Management of Information
McClelland Hall, Room 430GG
University of Arizona
1130 East Helen Street
Tucson, AZ 85721-0108
520-621-4105 Voice
520-621-3918 Fax
mailto:JNunamaker@cmi.arizona.edu
Abstract
"Almost every time there is a genuinely important decision to
be made in an organization, a group is assigned to make it --
or at least to counsel and advise the individual who must
make it." Hackman [23]
Meeting analysis, that is the study of meeting expenses,
productivity, processes, and outcomes, is relevant to GSS
practice And research for several reasons. Many reviews and
surveys [1, 2, 3, 15, 21, 52, 53, 57, 75, 82] reveal that meetings
dominate workers’ and managers’ time and yet are considered
to be costly, unproductive and dissatisfying. Studies [13, 52,
53, 56, 57] show that meetings are essential and that the
number of meetings and their duration has been steadily
increasing. Studies of Managers and knowledge workers [1, 13,
21, 51, 52, 53, 68, 75, 79, 89, 90, 92] reveal that they spend
between 25%-80% of their time in meetings, suggesting that
meetings are an important part of one’s working life. Estimates
of meeting expenses [1, 13, 39, 53] range from costs of $30
million to over 100 million per year to losses between $54
million and 3.7 billion annually! Self estimates of meeting
productivity [15, 21, 53 , 75] by managers in many different
functional areas range from 33% - 47%.
Introduction
Studies reveal that meetings are indeed costly and
unproductive, yet essential and increasing in number and
duration underscore the need for meeting productivity research.
Studying the purpose of group meetings and common meeting
problems provides insights into which types of group support
may improve meeting productivity. Finally, the increasing
trend toward telework [6, 17, 41, 58] justifies the need for
research into virtual meeting support. It is important to
understand how we meet and collaborate today before we can
begin to design effective new methods for the future. This
article reviews and summarizes in detail decades of “meeting
analysis” research which reveal that meetings are costly and
unproductive on the one hand, yet essential and increasing in
number and duration on the other. Then it defines meetings and
reviews literature on typical meetings, why groups meet,
purposes for holding meetings, monetary and temporal meeting
expenses, size and location of meetings, meeting problems,
addition of technology to meetings, and finally the rise of
telework and virtual meetings.
Meeting: A Definition
“A meeting is a gathering where people speak up, say
nothing, and then all disagree.” Kayser [38]
To explore complex human interactions such as meetings one
needs to understand them and their components in
detail. There is value in defining meetings as the definition
reveals the variety of purposes they serve and the specific
techniques required for each to bring about the greatest return
on investment [2]. Webster [96] defines a meeting as “an act
or process of coming together” that may be “a chance or a
planned encounter.” This definition incorporates the concepts
formality level and joint process or action; however it is
somewhat imprecise and inexplicit. Goffman [19] is more
explicit in defining a meeting as that which “occurs when
people effectively agree to sustain for a time a single focus of
cognitive and visual attention.” Hildreth [30] adds the
concept of a shared goal to define a meeting as a
“communication encounter between … persons for a common
purpose.” Nunamaker et. al. [61] incorporate the concepts of
physical and temporal dispersion and define a meeting as “any
activity where people come together, whether at the same
place at the same time, or in different places at different
times.”
The definition of meeting in this research combines elements of
all those found in the literature: “a focused interaction of
cognitive attention, planned or chance, where people agree to
come together for a common purpose, whether at the same
time and the same place, or at different times in different
places.” This definition includes several important dimensions
of meetings: focused interactions; groups of people; a common
purpose; level of formality; and temporal and physical
dispersion. Each of these dimensions may affect the meeting
itself and the support required to improve group productivity.
Our definition includes formal board meetings, casual hallway
conversations, telephone calls and internet-enabled interactions
through tools such as Net-meeting and discussion groups. Our
concept of a meeting involves people sharing data,
information, knowledge and wisdom to garner their collective
intelligence and bring it to bear to solve a problem or achieve a
goal together.
Typical Meetings
“A meeting is an interaction where the unwilling, selected
from the uninformed, led by the unsuitable, to discuss the
unnecessary, are required to write a report about the
unimportant.” Kayser [38]
While each meeting is a unique event, some studies attempt to
define a typical or average meeting. The 3M Meeting
Effectiveness Study (3M Study) developed a profile for the
typical meeting in Corporate America based on a survey of
over 900 meetings (See Figure 1.)
Figure 1.
Profile of the Typical Meeting in Corporate America [52]
The typical meeting in this study has the following
characteristics:
(Percentages based on 903 meetings surveyed, MF = Most
frequently reported value)
• Staff Meeting (45%)
• Held in Company Conference Room (74%)
• Starting at 11:00 AM (MF)
• Lasts 1 hour and 30 minutes (MF)
• Involves 9 people (2 managers, 4 coworkers, 2 subordinates, & 1
outsider) (MF)
• Two hours prior warning (MF)
• No advance written agenda (63%)
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 1
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

• Somewhat or very informal (76%)
• Most or all present actively participate (72%)
• Uses handouts (47%)
• Completely covers agenda only one-half of the time (53%)
•
Eleven percent of the time is spent discussing irrelevant issues.
(MF)
Kayser [38, 39] developed two typical meeting profiles based
on related 1989 and 1995 studies of Xerox’s 24,000 person
Manufacturing and Development group. These two profiles
differed only in terms of average cost (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2. Average Meeting for Xerox Manufacturing and
Development Group [38, 39]
Average Meeting Composition:
Seven People
Organizationally equivalent to
Four Senior Engineers
Two Project Managers
One Second-Level Manager
Average Length:
60 Minutes
Average Cost: (Accounting for fully loaded Salaries)
1989: $337.00
1995: $427.00
While defining the “average” or “typical” meeting provides
some insight, additional analysis may provide deeper
understanding. The following sections will explore meetings in
more depth and review studies from the literature.
Why Do Groups Work Together in Meetings?
"We meet because people holding different jobs have to
cooperate to get a specific task done. We meet because the
knowledge and experience needed in a specific situation are
not available in one head, but have to be pieced together out
of the knowledge and experience of several people."
Peter Drucker [14]
“A Meeting is indispensable when you don’t want to get
anything done.” Thomas Kayser [38]
Belief in the adage "two heads are better than one" may be
found in the widespread employ of meetings in many societies;
for example committees, boards, councils, and the use of juries
within many legal systems [31, 77]. Research shows that group
performance may often exceed individual performance.
Perhaps the best known evidence comes from Hall’s [24]
research with the “Lost on the Moon” problem. Hall found
that “When a group’s final decision is compared to the
independent points of view that the members held before
entering the group, the group’s effort is almost always an
improvement over its average individual resource, and often it
is better than even the best individual contribution.”
Hill [31] analyzed experimental comparisons of groups and
individuals on four dimensions: task, process, individual
differences, and methodology. The overall results of the
review and analysis showed that "group performance was
generally qualitatively and quantitatively superior to the
performance of the average individual." [31] Workers express
the desire to work together in groups. Hall [25] found in a
three-year survey of 10,277 U.S. workers from all levels of
employment that 97% reported they need conditions that
encourage collaboration to do their best work.
Meeting Purposes
“A meeting is a place where you keep the minutes and
throw away the hours. Thomas Kayser [38]
Meetings bring together a number of people that share a
definite purpose and value stems from that definite purpose [2].
The literature shows that groups meet for many different
reasons. Figure 3 provides some examples.
Figure 3 Examples from the Literature of
Why Groups Meet [53, 56, 61]
Make Decisions Avoid Decisions
Socialize Build Trust
Review Share Visions
Synergy Build Consensus
Solve Problems Surface Perspectives
Share work Build Teams
Long Range Planning Handling Emergencies
Education Training
Information Exchange Information Exchange
Sales Reorganization
Table 1 shows meeting purposes by percentage from the 3M
Study [52]. Almost two thirds (66%) of the meetings involved
complex group processes: reconcile conflict (29%); reach a
group judgment or decision (26%); solve a problem (11%).
Table 1. Meeting Purposes by Percentage [52]
% Meeting Purpose
29 Reconcile conflict
26 Reach a group judgment or decision
11 Solve a problem
11 Ensure that everyone understands
5 Facilitate staff communication
4 Gain support for a program
4 Explore new ideas and concepts
2 Accept reports
2 Demonstrate a project or system
(Percentages based on 903 Meetings)
Much literature (i.e. [5, 26, 43, 71, 97]) identifies numerous
meeting types. Figure 4 and Table 2 show some examples
based on surveys [2, 52], to determine the goals and
procedures of the meeting.
Figure 4 Six Different Meeting Types: [2]
• Staff Meetings
• Information Meetings
• Fact Finding Meetings
• Problem-Solving and Decision Making Meetings
• Committee Meetings
• Major Sales Meetings
Table 2 Types of Meetings in Corporate America by
Percentage [52]
% Meeting Type
45% Staff
22% Task Force
21% Information Sharing
5% Brainstorming
2% Ceremonial
5% Other
(Percentages based on 903 Meetings)
Meeting Expenses: Time and Money
“Time and Money, money and time, with respect to meetings
they intertwine. And, when all the costs are added up, it
blows your mind.” Thomas Kayser [39]
There is no such thing as a free meeting [38]. According to
Kayser, when one attends a meeting their actions send a clear
message: “This meeting is so important that I am willing to set
aside everything else that I could be doing to join with the
other attendees” [38]. This section is not intended to mislead
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 2
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

the reader nor to overwhelm them with statistics, but rather to
emphasize the exceedingly high costs associated with meetings.
Time Spent Meeting
“Ask any group of managers in any country in the world to
list their three most time-consuming activities. Invariably,
‘meetings’ will appear among the three. I have asked this
question of more than 200 groups, and in every case but
three, more than three quarters of each group indicated that
half their time spent in meetings is wasted” McKenzie [48]
Meeting time studies have gone on since the 1960s, when
Tillman’s [87] early benchmark study found on average
executives spent three and one-half (3 ½) hours weekly in
planned meetings and more time in informal meetings. 1970’s
surveys show increases in numbers of meetings [53]. Rice [75]
found that of 600, the average participated in six to seven
meetings weekly, or almost twice as many as Tillman [87]
found, and that one-half reported they attended more meetings
than in the past. Mintzberg’s [51] study of six CEOs over a
five week period suggests managers spend up to 70% of their
time in meetings (60% scheduled 10% unscheduled (see Table
3,) and on average attend eight meetings per day. Van de Ven
[92] found that program managers spent as much as 80% of
their time in meetings. Tubbs [90] reports that in a 1978 survey
the average executive at a large Insurance company spent
approximately 700 hours annually or almost two out of five
days in meetings. Many middle managers reported spending as
many as three or four full days a week in meetings and some
reported spending eight straight hours in one meeting [53].
These 1970’s studies reveal a general trend toward business
professionals at all levels in small and large companies
spending increasing amounts of time in meetings [53].
Table 3 Percentage Distribution of
Hours by Managerial Activity [51]
Managerial Activity % Hours
Scheduled Meetings 59%
Desk Work 22%
Unscheduled Meetings 10%
Telephone Calls 6%
Tours 3%
Studies in the 1980’s also show increases in numbers of
meetings. Mosvick [54, 55] conducted two related studies of
950 managers and technical professionals in large-scale
technology-intensive industries ranging from junior to senior
management in both the U.S. and abroad over a five year
period. Major findings were "a notable shift toward an
increase in the number and length of meetings with an
increasingly high level of dissatisfaction with meetings" (See
Table 4) [53].
Professionals in the first survey [54] report attending seven
weekly meetings with three or more participants, six at work
and one after-hours, accounting for nearly six hours [54] (See
table 4 Survey I). Respondents in the second survey report an
increase of 2.5 meetings to a weekly average of 9.5, 8.5 at work
and one after-hours, which consumed nearly 25% (or 10 hours)
of their work week [55] (See table 2.4 Survey II). This
translates into a 55% increase in total meeting hours. Results
also indicate a slight increase in meeting length [55] (See table
4 Survey II.) In a more detailed value analysis of all managers
and technical professionals at one location within one major
company, Mosvick and Nelson [53, 55] found that 7000
managers at all levels spend on average 8.4 hours per week in
meetings (See Table 5.)
Table 4 Average Number and Length of Reported Meetings
Each Week [53, 54, 55]
Survey I
(1981-1982)
(N=230)
Survey II
(1983-1986)
(N=720)
Types of Meetings # Length
(min.)
# Length
(min.)
Increase
Staff 1.5 57 2.0 62 9%
Policy 0.7 48 1.0 56 17%
Problem Solving 2.3 50 3.5 54 8%
Interdepartmental 1.5 60 2.1 61 2%
Total on the job 6.0 5.4 Hr. 8.6 8.3 Hr 54%
After hours or Business
lunch
0.8 59 1.2 67 14%
Total Meetings 6.8 6.2 Hr. 9.8 9.6 Hr 55%
Table 5. Time Spent in Meetings per Week in a High-
Technology Corporation by Management Level [53, 55]
Level # Employees Hours
Senior 1000 9.7
Middle 2000 9.0
Junior 4000 7.8
Mean 7000 8.4
Table 6 presents meeting lengths reported in the 3M Study
[52]. The range was from five minutes (1%) to 11 hours (1%)
and the median one hour and 30 minutes. Over one-half (51%)
of the more than 900 respondents reported that meetings were
30 minutes to one and one-half hours in length. [52].
Table 6. Reported Length of Actual Meetings in Corporate
America [52]
Length %
0-30 min. 0.9%
31-61 min. 26.0%
1-1.5 hrs. 25.0%
1.5-2 hrs. 16.0%
2-4 hrs. 13.0%
> 4 hrs. 10.0%
(Percentages based on 903 Meetings)
Panko [67] found in a survey of 22 executive MBA students
with full time managerial or professional positions that most
meetings are brief. Table 7 shows that by percent of time
almost three-quarters (73%) of the 436 reported oral
communication events were 30 minutes or less in length, while
only three percent (3%) lasted longer than 2 hours. The table
also shows that by percent of events brief meetings of 15
minutes or less account for only 12% of face-to-face meeting
time, while the longest meetings of two or more hours account
for one-half of the time.
The 3M Study [52] found that almost one-third of the
respondents (31%) spend one or more hours attending
meetings with three or more people daily, while another third
spends fifteen minutes or less attending meetings (See Table
2.8) [52].
Table 7. Reported Length of Oral Communication [69]
Length % Events % Time
5 min. 28% 3%
10 min. 12% 3%
15 min. 14% 6%
30 min. 19% 15%
45 min. 6% 8%
1 hr. 9% 18%
2 hrs. 9% 29%
> 2 hrs. 3% 21%
(Percentages based on 436 Oral Communication Events)
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 3
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

Table 8. Amount of Time Spent in Meetings Daily [52]
Length %
0-15 min. 35%
15-30 min. 14%
30-60 min. 21%
1-2 hrs. 13%
2-4 hrs. 11%
> 4 hrs. 7%
(Percentages based on 903 Meetings)
Several Survey’s by Tropman [89] showed that more than 50%
of an active managers official work-time is spent in meetings.
A survey of 2000 business leaders by Harrison-Hofstra showed
that they spend 25-70% of their day in meetings [10, 56, 79].
A survey of 1000 [21] executives found that seven out of ten
(71.9%) spend more time in meetings than they did five years
prior and that 87% spend at least the same amount of time in
meetings as they did five years earlier (see Table 9.) The same
survey found that almost one-half (49.3%) expect to spend
even more time in meetings and that almost 85% expect to
spend at least as much time in meetings five years in the future
[21] See Table (10.)
Table 9. Time Spent in Meetings
Compared to Five Years Earlier [21]
Time Spent % of Respondents
More 71.9%
Same 14.8%
Less 10.9%
No Opinion 3.2%
(Percentages based on 1000 executives)
Table 10. Expected Time Spent in Meetings
Five Years in the Future [21]
Expected Time % of Respondents
More 49.3%
Same 35.1%
Less 12.5%
No Opinion 3.1%
(Percentages based on 1000 executives)
The 3M Study [52] found that 25-80% of a typical managers
time is spent in meetings. Doyle [13] found that typical middle
managers spend around 35% of their work week in meetings
and top mangers may spend as much as 50% of their time in
meetings. Mosvick and Nelson [53] found that the average
technical professional or manager spends almost one-fourth
(1/4) of their work week in meetings, top and middle managers
may spend as much as two full days a week in meetings, and
executive managers may spend four days a week in meetings.
Panko [67] found that as much as 20% of a manager’s workday
is spent in conference room meetings. In another study Panko
[68] found that managers spend approximately 20% of their
work day in five-person or larger formal meetings and as much
as 85% of their time communicating. The 1999 Pitney Bowes
Survey of 800 Knowledge Workers Found that the number and
format of communucation messages that knowledge workers
receive is increasing (See Table 11.)
Table 11. Pitney Bowes Survey of Knowledge workers
Message Format 1999 1998 1984*
Telephone Calls 52 20
E-mails 36 4
Voicemails 23 0
S-Mails 18 10
Interoffice Memos 18 11
Faxes 14 0
Post-its 13 5
Message Slips 9 4
Pager Messages 8 0
Cell Calls 4 0
Express Mail 7 0
Total 202 190 54
Estimate
If one takes a very conservative estimate of four hours of
meetings per week the average person would spend over 9,000
hours or 365 days in meeting during their lifetime. [13]
Mosvick and Nelson [53] estimate that many companies are
losing the "equivalent of 30 man-days and 240 man-hours a
year for every person who participates in business
conferences," due to poor meeting preparation, ad hoc
scheduling, and lack of training in meeting management. The
3M Meeting Management Team [1] conservatively estimates
that middle managers spend 4.4 million hours in meetings
annually.
2.4.2 Number of Meetings
“There are meetings, and meetings about meetings, and
meetings to plan reports, and meetings to review the status of
reports.And what these meetings are about is people just
trying to figure out what they are doing.”Paul Strassmann
Several studies [13, 52, 53, 57] show that meeting frequency is
growing. In 1988, United States Fortune 500 companies are
estimated to have held between “eleven and fifteen million”
formal meetings daily and between “three and four billion“
meetings yearly [13, 52]. Results of the 1998 Meeting
Professionals International/American Society of Association
Executives (MPI/ASAE) Seventh Annual Meetings Outlook
Survey [57] indicate that the need for meetings will increase in
the future. Twenty-four percent (24%) of respondents expect to
hold more meetings in 1998. Eighteen percent (18%) expect to
hold more regional meetings, while eighty-two percent plan to
hold at least the same number. Twenty-one (21%) percent
expect to hold more national meetings. Fourteen percent (14%)
expect to hold more international meetings. Only fifteen
percent (15%) predict they will hold shorter meetings [57].
2.4.3 Economic Costs of Meetings
“Unproductive meeting time translates
into a $37 billion annual waste.”
Harrison-Hofstra Survey [79]
Research shows that although figures vary, most organizations
spend between seven and fifteen percent (7-15%) of their
personnel budget on meetings [13, 52.] One California
company with a 350 million dollar personnel budget estimates
that they spend $30 million annually on meetings [13].
Mosvick and Nelson performed a detailed value analysis of
7000 managers and technical professionals at one location
within a major company that revealed an over $54 million
annual loss due to ineffectively planned and conducted
meetings [53, 55] (see Table 2.12)
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 4
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

Table 2.11. Summary of Time Spent in Meetings Literature
Yr. Study Population #/Units/Time Reference
1960 Executives Ave 3 ½ hrs/week in planned meetings [87]
1973 600 Executives 6-7 meetings/week [75]
1973 ½ of 600 Executives Report more meetings than ever [75]
1973 6 CEOs Up to 70% of time in meetings 60% scheduled,
10% unscheduled
[51]
1973 6 CEOs On average attend 8 meetings per day [51]
1973 Program managers Up to 80% of time in meetings [92]
1978 Ave. Executive 700 hrs/yr or 2 days/week in meetings [90]
1982 Managers 9000 hrs or 365days/Lifetime in meetings [13]
1982 Middle managers 35%/work week in meetings [13]
1982 Middle managers 50%/work week in meetings [13]
1982 Ave. mgr. or tech prof. 6 hrs/week in meetings [54]
1985 Managers >50%/ worktime in meetings [89]
1986 Ave. mgr. or tech prof. ~10 hrs/week in meetings [55]
1987 Ave. mgr. or tech prof. up to 50%/time in meetings [53]
1987 7000 managers Ave. 8.4 hrs/week in meetings [53]
1987 Ave. mgr. or tech prof. ~ ¼/work week in meetings [53]
1987 Middle managers Up to 4 full days/week in meetings [53]
1987 Middle managers 8 straight hrs in one meeting [53]
1989 2000 business leaders 25-70%/day in meetings [79]
1989 1000 Executives 71.9% spend more time meeting than 5 yrs ago [21]
1989 1000 Executives 49.3% expect to spend more time in meetings
five years from now
[21]
1989 Typical Managers 25-80%/time in meetings [52]]
1989 1/3 of 903 managers 1 or more hrs/day in 3 or larger meetings [52]]
1989 1/3 of 903 managers 15 min./day or less in meetings [52]]
1994 Middle Managers 4.4 Million hours/year [1]
1994 Managers 85%/time Communicating [68]
1994 Managers 25%/workday in conference room meetings [68]
Table 2.12. Annual Cost of Meetings and Estimated Loss in
a High-Technology Corporation by Management Level
[53, 55]
Level #Emps Hour
s
Estimated
Burden Rate
Cost of time in
Meetings
Senior 1000 9.7 $50 $485,000
Middl
e
2000 9.0 $40 $720,000
Junior 4000 7.8 $30 $936,000
Weekly Cost of Meetings $2,141,000
Annual Cost of Meetings
($2,141,000 x 48 Weeks)
$102,768,000
Estimated Meeting Efficiency
(47% of Annual Cost)
$48,300,000
Loss Due to Ineffective Meetings $54, 468,000
(Meeting hours and burden rate drawn from one company in the 1986
Mosvick Study)
Mosvick and Nelson conducted a similar cost analysis of a
larger population of managers and technical professionals
working for a larger multinational firm. This second analysis,
using actual company reports of time spent in meetings,
estimates of meetings , and the company’s burden rates,
yielded a conservative estimate of losses in group productivity
of $71 million per year [53, 64].
The 3M Meeting Management Team [1] conservatively
estimates that meetings involving middle managers within 3M
corporation cost the company $78.8 million annually. Kayser
[38, 39] found that the average cost of a one hour meeting,
accounting for fully loaded salaries, within Xerox’s 24,000
person Manufacturing and Development group rose from
$337.00 in 1989 to $427.00 in 1995. When multiplied by a
conservative estimate of 4,500 meetings per week and 52
weeks per year the annualized cost increase was $22.3 million
(28.5%) from $78.9 million in 1989 to $100.4 million in 1995.
Table 2.13. Summary of Economic Costs/Losses of Meeting
Studies
Yr. Study Population $ Cite
198
2
CA corp. $350 m/yr.
personnel budget
30 Million
(cost)
[13]
198
6
7000+ mgrs. in hi tech
firm
54 Million
(loss)
[53]
198
6
7000+ managers in high
tech firm
71 Million
(loss)
[53]
198
9
24,000 Man. & Dev.
Group in Xerox
78.9 Million (cost) [38]
199
4
3M middle managers 78.8
Million(cost)
[1]
199
5
24,000 Man. & Dev.
Group in Xerox
100.4 Million
(cost)
[39]
198
9
3000 Business Leaders $37 Billion/Year
(waste)
[39]
2.4.3.1 Determining the Direct Cost of Meetings
The 3M Meeting management institute suggests that the
following factors should come into play when calculating the
cost of a meeting:
• Hourly wages and/or salaries ( including benefits ) for all
attendees
• Wages and salaries for those who prepare the meeting
(including attendees, secretaries, set up crew, etc.)
• Cost of materials used for the meeting (handouts, visuals,
etc.)
• Overhead costs for the facilities for length of meeting
• Cost of speaker or facilitator, if applicable
• Cost of travel, lodging, meals, etc. if meeting is held out
of office
• Cost of any additional miscellaneous expenses incurred
due to holding the meeting
They suggest that these factors are often difficult to measure,
and therefore developed a formula that estimates meeting costs
at twice the salary costs for all attendees. Table 2.14 shows an
example of how costly meetings may be with only a few
participants in attendance.
Table 2.14 Estimated Hourly Meeting Costs [1]
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 5
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

Ave.
Annual
Salary
Hourly Cost of Meeting in $
$75,000 150 300 450 600 750 150
0
$62,500 125 250 375 500 625 125
0
$50,000 100 200 300 400 500 100
0
$37,500 75 150 225 300 375 750
$25,000 50 100 150 200 250 500
$12,500 25 50 75 100 125 250
2 4 6 8 10 20
Number of Attendees
2.4.3.2 Indirect Meeting Costs
“Many meetings create a ripple effect. A meeting of fifteen
people can affect how three hundred people work -- or don’t
work – for the rest of the day or week or even permanently.”
Michael Doyle and Peter Strauss [13]
Unproductive meetings may cost organizations more than
wasted dollars; time may be lost, morale may decline, and
productivity may be reduced [1]. There are a number of hidden
costs associated with unsuccessful meetings, for example time
wasted cooling off due to frustration and anger and griping to
others. Doyle and Strauss [13] estimate that the time lost after
ineffective meetings may cost $800,000 per 1000 employees.
Doyle and Strauss [13] call this the “Meeting Recovery
Syndrome.” While direct meeting costs, such as time and
money, are obvious, there is also the cost of ‘lost
opportunities’ to work on other more productive tasks [38].
2.5 Meeting Size and Composition
“The best meeting is a group of three with one person sick
and another out of town.” Kayser [39]
2.5.1 Having the Right People Attend Meetings
When meetings are required one must decide who it is
appropriate to invite [13, 39]. Oppenheim [66] found that not
having the “right” people is one of the leading causes of
unproductive meetings. More than a third (34%) of 3M Study
[52] participants report only a few (4%) or some (30%)
relevant people attended meetings (See Table 2.15.) Several
researchers offer guidelines for who to invite to meetings (See
Table 2.16 for a summary.)
Table 2.15. Relevance of People Attending Meetings [52]
Statement %
No Relevant People 0%
A Few Relevant People 4%
Some Relevant People 30%
All Relevant People 66%
(Based on 903 Meetings)
Table 2.16. Summary of Guidelines for
Who to Invite to Meetings
Guideline References
Those with the relevant expertise [2, 13, 39]
Those who must be in on this decision [2, 13, 39]
Those that are crucial to the implementation [13]
Those most affected by the problem being addressed or
their representative
[1, 13, 39]
Those with direct responsibility and authority over the
topic of discussion
[1, 2, 39,
53]
Those responsible to resolve or implement decisions [1, 2, 39,
53]
Those with enough knowledge to contribute
meaningfully
[1]
Those with require information unavailable elsewhere [2, 53]
2.5.2 Number of People Attending Meetings
“Just why an executive already having four subordinates
should hesitate before adding a fifth member to the group
which he controls directly, becomes clear if it is realized that
the addition not only brings twenty new relationships with
him, but adds nine more relationships to each of his
colleagues.
The total is raised from 44 to 100 possible relationships for
the unit, an increase in complexity of 127 percent in return
for a 20 percent increase in working capacity.”
V. A. Graicunas [2]
2.5.2.1 Early Studies of Group Size and Performance
Questions about the effects of group size on performance have
been of interest to researchers since the first experimental
studies of groups in the late 1890s and early 1900s [28, 80, 86,
88]. Taylor [86] observed that steel workers would slow their
individual pace to match that of a group norm when working
with others. James [36] found that larger groups are less stable
than smaller groups. Several studies [4, 8, 9, 18] found that
larger groups inhibit individual participation and have more
difficulties in communication than smaller groups. Both Gibb
[18] and Rice [74] found that larger groups create more stress
than smaller ones. Two studies [83, 95] found larger groups
were more successful than smaller groups with certain tasks
due to the greater number of skills present; however four
studies [27, 45, 83, 85] found that large groups are less
efficient or productive at many other tasks. Slater [81] found
that members of groups of six or smaller never felt their group
was too large and that members of groups of four or larger
never felt their group was too small. Both Bales [5] and Slater
[81] found that five appears to be the optimum group size.
Table 2.17. Summary of Early Meeting Size Studies
Yr. Finding Cite
1903 Slowed pace when other present to match
group norm
[86]
1927-
28
Larger groups more successful with certain
tasks due to additional resources
[83, 95]
1934-
51
Larger groups inhibit individual participation
and have more communication difficulties than
smaller ones
[4, 8, 9,
18]
1951 Larger groups less stable than smaller ones [36]
1951 Larger groups create more stress than smaller
ones
[18, 74]
1927-
52
Large groups are less efficient and productive
than small groups at many tasks
[27, 45,
83, 85]
1954-
58
Five appears to be the optimum group size [81]
1958 Members of groups of 6 or less never felt group
was too large
[81]
1958 Members of groups of 4+ never felt group was
too small
[81]
2.5.2.2 Meeting Size Guidelines
Meeting literature suggests both that meetings should be as
small as possible [2, 39, 53] and that they should have as
many points of view as possible to avoid groupthink [2, 13,
33]. Mosvick and Nelson [53] suggest that studies have shown
the ideal size to be an uneven number, to prevent deadlocks, of
five to seven members. They suggest that groups smaller than
five lack the broad mix of expertise required to efficiently
handle tasks. They also suggest that groups of more than seven
have complicated group dynamics: a few members dominate
and participation becomes unequal; factions may form; and
people may have less commitment to tasks. Doyle and Strauss
[13] suggest that the larger the group the more structure
meetings require.
Doyle and Strauss [13] suggest guidelines for appropriate
meeting sizes for different meeting purposes based on four
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 6
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

arbitrary divisions (2-7, 7-15, 15-30, and above 30) around the
boundaries of which they believe meeting dynamics seem to
change. Each of these is discussed in the following sections.
2.5.2.2.1 Meetings of Two to Seven Participants
Many meetings have two to seven (2-7) participants,
specifically staff meetings of managers and subordinates [13].
The question of how many to invite to a staff meeting is rarely
raised, because the number is often assumed to be determined
by the number of people at the next hierarchical level [13].
Doyle and Strauss [13] suggest that this size assumption may
not always be valid and that for certain issues one may want
and need to include other organizational members. They
present several potential advantages of such meetings: groups
assemble quickly; sessions are informal and flexible; any
meeting type may be used; detailed technical and logistical
problems may be efficiently addressed; and finally it is
relatively easy to manage the group dynamics. They suggest
two main disadvantages: first, only a few viewpoints are
represented, which may lead to decisions of lower quality and
impact than might be achieved with larger groups; and second,
the small group may not have the critical mass needed to
achieve the best creative problem-solving [13].
2.5.2.2.2 Meetings of Seven to Fifteen Participants
Doyle and Strauss [13] suggest that this size is ideal for
decision-making and problem-solving meetings. They suggest
several advantages: all participants may easily be involved;
everyone’s thoughts may be communicated; it is small enough
to be informal and spontaneous and also large enough to allow
for a facilitator and a scribe; and it seems to be the size which
best creates synergy. They point out two disadvantages: first,
complexity is such that clear structure is required; and second
that a recorder and facilitator are both required, but there are
high costs in terms of time to record everything.
2.5.2.2.3 Meetings of Fifteen to Thirty Participants
Doyle and Strauss [13] suggest that “most meetings should not
have more than fifteen participants,” because the group
dynamics become very complex and often professional
facilitation is required. They suggest that the disadvantages
include the need to impose rules of order, increased formality
over smaller meetings, decreased spontaneity, and the need for
facilitation to achieve constructive participation.
2.5.2.2.4 Meetings of Thirty or More Participants
Doyle and Strauss [13] suggest that groups of thirty or more
work well for lectures, panel discussions, formal debates, and
voting, but much beyond thirty participation requires a clear set
of rules such as parliamentary procedure. They also suggest
that large numbers can be involved in the planning process.
The 3M Meeting Management Team [1] also suggest that the
number of participants should vary according to meeting type
(See Table 2.18.)
Table 2.18. Optimal Meeting Sizes [1]
Meeting Type Max. Parts. Comments
Problem Solving 5 Recommend 5 or fewer
Decision Making 5 Recommend 5 or fewer
Problem Identification 10 More may bog down the
process
Training Seminar 15 Especially for hands-on
Informational 30 To promote interaction
Review or Presentation 30 To promote interaction
Motivational No Limit The more the better
2.5.2.3 Meeting Size and Composition Surveys
Several studies analyzed meeting size and three of those also
looked at meeting composition: Mintzberg’s [51] executive
observations; the Harrison-Hofstra Study [21]; the 3M Study
[52] Kayser’s two Xerox Surveys [38, 39]; and Panko’s [69]
Executive MBA Survey.
2.5.2.3.1 Average Meeting Size and Composition
Five studies [21, 38, 39, 52, 69] report an “average” meeting
size, however the one common finding is that there is no
“typical” meeting size. 70% of the respondents in the Harrison-
Hofstra Study [21] reported that the typical meeting size was
fifteen participants or less. The 3M Study [52] found that the
median number of meeting attendees is nine and consists of
two managers, four coworkers, two subordinates, and one
outsider. The Two Xerox Surveys [38, 39] found the average
meeting involves seven participants and is composed of
four senior engineers, two project managers, and one second-
level manager. Panko [69] argues that dyads are the dominant
meeting size, however this survey defined meetings as any oral
communication.
Table 2.19. Summary of Average Meeting Size
Yr. Study Population Finding Cite
198
9
1000 Executives Typical size 15 or
fewer
[21]
198
9
903 Managers Median size is 9 [52]
199
0
Xerox 24,000 group Average meeting
involves 7
[38]
199
5
Xerox 24,000 group Average meeting
involves 7
[39]
199
5
22 Executive MBA –
Managers
Groups of two
dominate
[69]
2.5.2.3.2 Meeting Sizes Across Studies
Mintzberg [51] found that for twenty-two CEOs observed,
43% of scheduled meetings involved three or more
participants, while 57% involved dyads. Panko’s Executive
MBA Survey [69] found that most oral communication events
were dyadic, however it should be noted that the design of the
survey excluded data on many larger meetings (see Table
2.20.) Sixty-five percent (65%) of meeting events were dyadic
and thirty percent (30%) had from three to ten participants.
Panko [69] also suggests that meetings with four to seven
participants, which account for thirteen percent (13%), are
fairly common. In total meetings of ten participants or less
accounted for ninety percent (90%) of all oral communication
events [69].
Table 2.20.
Oral Communication Episode Size by Percent [69]
Size %
2 65%
3 12%
4 4%
5 2%
6 4%
7 3%
8 1%
9 2%
10 1%
>10 5%
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 7
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

(Based on 436 Oral Communication Episodes)
Table 2.21 presents data from the 3M study on the number of
participants in meetings. Twenty percent (20%) of the meetings
had fewer than six (6) participants, almost one-fourth (1/4) had
sixteen (16) or more participants, forty-one percent (41%) had
between six and ten (6-10) participants, and The median
number of participants was nine (9) [52].
Table 2.21. Meeting Size by Percentage [52]
Size % #
1-5 20% 180
6-10 41% 361
11-15 17% 152
16-25 9% 84
26-90 10% 87
> 90 3% 24
(Based on 903 Meetings)
Table 2.22. Summary of Meeting Size
Yr. Study Population Finding
Cite
197
3
22 CEOs of Large
Organizations
43% of meetings had 3 or
more participants
[51]
198
9
1000 Executives 70% said typical size was
15 or fewer
[21]
198
9
903 Managers 41% of meetings had
between 6 and 10
[52]
198
9
903 Managers 78% of meetings had 15
or fewer participants
[52]
199
5
22 Executive MBAs 65% oral communication
events dyads
[69]
2.6 Meeting Location
“Where
people meet is a crucial as why and when. The
choice of a meeting room has a significant impact on the
overall quality of the meeting. Among other things, a meeting
room can enhance or inhibit productivity, encourage or
discourage communication, promote or stifle creativity,
and make participants feel relaxed or tense.”
3M Meeting Management Team [1]
The literature discusses a number of different locations where
meetings take place within business organizations (see table
2.23.) The 3M Meeting Management Team [1] suggests that
great care be taken in selection and setup of a meeting
location, because it plays a very important role in meeting
productivity.
Table 2.23 Meeting Locations [21, 52, 69]
Conference rooms (On-site/Off-site )
Hallways
Restaurants/Company Cafeterias
Offices (Own/coworkers)
Breakout rooms
Respondents in the Harrison-Hofstra Survey [21] ranked
physical environment high in terms of importance; nearly
eighty-five percent (85%) said that it is important that meetings
are conducted in the proper physical environment.
Respondents said that off-site meetings are more effective than
on-site ones by a factor of ten to one [21]. The 3M Study [52]
found that almost two-thirds (74%) of meetings took place in
company conference rooms, while all other locations
individually accounted from between two and ten percent (2-
10%) (see Table 2.24.)
Table 2.24. Meeting Locations by Percentage [52]
Meeting Location %
Firm’s conference room 74%
This person’s office 3%
Coworker’s office 10%
Client’s conference room 2%
Outside this firm 5%
Other 6%
(Based on 903 Meetings)
Panko [69] looked at meeting location from two perspectives,
percentage of events and percentage of time. In terms of
‘events’, office meetings account for half (50%) of all meeting
events and conference room meetings up one quarter (25%). In
terms of “amount of time” the situation is reversed, such that
conference room meetings account for over half (54%) of all
face-to-face meeting time and office meetings. One interesting
finding is that hallway meetings were much less prevalent than
one might expect (see Table 2.25.) The difference in the results
of these two studies [52, 69] might be due to the fact that the
3M study did not consider dyads, while Panko’s study did.
Table 2.25. Meeting Location by Percentage Event &
Percentage Time [69]
Meeting Location % Event % Time
Conference room 26% 54%
Office 50% 28%
Restaurant 7% 8%
Hallway 4% 1%
Other 13% 9%
(Based on 446 oral communication episodes)
2.6 Group Work Problems
“Even in a highly controlled meeting, there is a lot … going
on – bonding, rituals, glances, innuendoes, and so forth.”
Terrence E. Deal
2.6.1 Meeting Productivity: Efficiency and Effectiveness
"One either meets or one works, One cannot do both at the
same time." [14]
Rice [75] found that of 600 CEOs surveyed one-third (1/3)felt
that meetings were not worth the time and of only marginal
value and seventy-three percent (73%) questioned meeting
effectiveness in terms of lack of planning, discussions on
irrelevant topics, or excessive meeting length. 3M Study
respondents reported that between eleven and twenty-five
percent (11-25%) of meeting time is spent on irrelevant issues
[52]. The Harrison-Hofstra Survey [21] found that overall
respondents concluded that one-third (33.4%) of time they
spend in meetings is unproductive and that twelve percent
(12%) of respondents felt that over fifty percent (50%) of the
time they spend in meetings is unproductive. A recent survey
of executives found that respondents felt twenty to thirty
percent (20-30%) of meetings were unnecessary [15].
Table 2.26. Summary of Meeting Productivity Studies
Yr Study
Population
Findings Cite
197
3
600 CEOs 73% questioned meeting
effectiveness due to lack of
planning, irrelevant topics, &
excessive length
[75]
198
9
900
Managers
11-25% of time spent on
irrelevant issues
[52]
199
1
1000
Executives
1/3 (33.4%) of meeting time is
unproductive
[21]
199
1
1000
Executives
12% felt over 50% of meeting
time is unproductive
[21]
199
8
Executives Majority concluded 20-30% of
meetings unneeded
[15]
.
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 8
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

2.6.2 Attitudes Toward Meetings
“Decision makers find themselves faced with more and more
lengthy meetings required to discuss information-laden
issues, but they are starting to resist attending these meetings
” [35]
Executives surveyed by Tillman [87] in 1960 expressed
positive attitudes about committee work with between fifty-five
and eighty percent reporting they felt that committees promote
coordination, creativity, and informed decision making. In
contrast only eight percent wanted to eliminate committees if
given the chance. However, by the mid seventies there was a
growing dissatisfaction with meetings [53]. Both Rice [75]
and Goldhaber [20] found an overall negative attitude
regarding meetings. In the 3M Study [52] one third of meeting
participants complain they have little or no influence on the
outcome of meetings. A 1989 study of 200 corporate vice
presidents found that forty percent (40%) admitted to falling
asleep or dozing off during a meeting presentation and they
reported that they found more than forty-three (43%) percent of
business meetings “boring” [52]. A recent survey of executives
found that forty-three percent (43%) of them admitted dozing
off at least once during a meeting [15].
Table 2.27. Summary of Attitudes Towards Meetings
Yr. Study
Population
Findings Cite
196
0
Executives 55-85% felt committees promote
coordination, creativity, &
informed decision making
[87]
196
0
Executives 8% would eliminate committees if
they could
[87]
197
3
600 CEOs 1/3 felt meetings not worth time
and of only marginal value
[75]
198
9
900
Managers
1/3 complain they have little or nor
influence over meeting outcomes
[52]
198
9
200 Corp.
VPs
40% admit falling asleep or dozing
off in meetings
[52]
198
9
200 Corp.
VPs
More than 43% of business
meetings were boring
[52]
199
8
Executives 43% admitted dozing off during a
meeting
[15]
.
2.6.2 Specific Meeting Problems
"Phenomenon of Collective Incompetence"
"Very wise individuals can still compose very foolish groups"
George Kieffer [40]
"Groups of individuals are far more likely to err than
individuals" T. B. Macaulay
"Anyone taken as an individual is tolerably sensible and
reasonable, but as a member of a crowd he at once becomes
a blockhead" Friedrich Schiller
"The collective intelligence of the group turns out to be less
than the sum of its members' IQs."
3M Meeting Management Team [1]
Researchers [52, 53, 64, 78 ] have explored many potential
problems that may impede progress when people work
together. In two related studies managers and professionals
were asked to list the two most personally bothersome
problems that take place in meetings. The 1,305 responses
were organized into specific categories; table 2.28 shows some
of the reported problems. [53]
Table 2.28 Reported Meeting Problems[53]
(N= 1305)
Rank Type of Problem #
1 Getting off the subject 20
4
2 No goals or agenda 19
0
3 Too lengthy 18
7
4 Poor or inadequate preparation 94
5 Inconclusive 88
6 Disorganized 86
7 Ineffective leadership/lack of control 38
8 Irrelevance of information discussed 37
9 Time wasted during meetings 37
10 Starting late 36
11 Not effective for making decisions 31
12 Interruptions from within and without 30
13 Individuals dominate/aggrandize discussion 29
14 Rambling, redundant, or digressive discussion 27
15 No published results or follow up actions 25
16 No pre-meeting orientation/cancelled or postponed
meetings
20
17 Meetings too large/too many people 13
18 Ineffective speakers/communication problems 13
19 Too much information presented 12
20 Poor attitudes or effort by participants 10
21 Lack of participation 8
22 Participants have no decision authority 8
Source: Data combined from [54, 55]
Nunamaker et. al. [61] reviewed the literature on group
processes and described process gains and losses. Table 2.29
lists some potential sources of process losses and processes
gains, but is by no means exhaustive.
Table 2.29. Group Process Gains and Losses [61]
Sources of Process Gains Sources of Process Losses
More information Air Time Fragmentation
Synergy Production Blocking
More Objective
Evaluation
Attenuation Blocking
Stimulation Concentration Blocking
Learning Attention blocking
Failure to Remember
Conformance apprehension
Evaluation apprehension
Free Riding
Cognitive Inertia
Socializing
Domination
Information Overload
Coordination Problems
Incomplete Use of Information
Incomplete Task Analysis
The 3M Study [52] suggests several common reasons for
meeting failures and presents statistics from their study. These
are described in the following sections.
2.6.2.1 Lack of Preparation
2.6.2.1.1 Lack of Notification
The 3M Study [52] found that seven percent of
respondents reported they had no prior notification of
a meeting and eighteen percent reported that they had
less than one day's notice (See table 2.30)
Table 2.30 Amount of Meeting Notification [52]
Notice Percent
No notice 7%
0-1 hr. 4%
1 hr. - 1 day 14%
1 - 5 days 24%
5 - 7 days 18%
7 – 30 days 25%
> 30 days 5%
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 9
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

2.6.2.1.2 Preparation Time for Meetings
The 3M Study [52] found that one-third (33%) of respondents
spent no time preparing for meetings, forty-four percent spent
one hour or less, and only twenty-five percent spent more than
one hour [52] (See Table 2.31).
Table 2.31. Amount of Time Spent
Preparing for Meetings [52]
Prep Time Percent
No notice 33%
1-60 min. 44%
1 hr. - 1 day 19%
1 - 5 days 4%
5 - 7 days 0%
7 - 30 days 2%
> 30 days 1%
2.6.2.1.3 Perceived Level of Self-Preparation for Meetings
Although more than seventy-five percent of the respondents in
the 3M Study [52] report they spent one hour or less preparing
for a meeting, when asked how prepared they thought they are
personally, more than three-quarters (3/4) said they were
prepared (54%) or very prepared (25%) (See Table 2.32). Five
percent stated they were unprepared, while only one percent
very unprepared. This presents somewhat of a paradox and
may suggest that people either overestimate their level of
preparedness or underestimate the time needed to prepare for
meetings.
Table 2.32 Perceived Level of Self-Preparation for Meetings
[52]
Preparation Level %
Very Prepared 25%
Prepared 54%
Somewhat Unprepared 15%
Unprepared 5%
Very Unprepared 1%
2.6.2.2 Agenda Problems
Agendas are considered to be essential framing devices for
meetings and the lack of one suggests inadequate planning [52,
53]. The best predictor of the success of a meeting may be a
written agenda distributed in advance [1]. Although agendas
are considered important or even essential to the success of
meetings, meeting surveys presented in this section show that
they are often not used or not communicated prior to meetings.
2.6.2.2.1 Lack of an Agenda
No goals or agenda was the second most commonly reported
meeting problem in Mosvick and Nelson’s [53] survey of 950
managers and professionals. In the Harrison-Hofstra [7, 79]
survey nearly one-half of the meetings did not have a written
agenda; however seventy-three percent of the respondents felt
that an agenda is "essential" for a productive meeting. The 3M
Study [52] found that almost one-third (32%) of respondents
reported that their meetings had no stated agenda. Less than
one-third (29%) have written agendas distributed prior to
meetings and another 17% have verbal agendas stated in
advance. 9% of the meetings have written agendas distributed
at the start of the meeting (See Table 2.33).
Table 2.33 How a Meeting Agenda is communicated [52]
Agenda Communicated Percent
No Stated Agenda 32%
Written Distributed Before 29%
Written Distributed at start 8%
Verbal to all before 17%
Verbal to some before 2%
Verbal to some before, not me 4%
Other 1%
2.6.2.2.2 Hidden Agendas
The 3M Study [52] found that even when a written agenda is
distributed before a meeting there may still be underlying
issues present which are not stated on the agenda. Nearly two-
thirds (63%) of respondents indicated they felt underlying
issues were present in meetings. Nearly one-third (30%)
reported the presence of underlying issues to a small extent;
twenty-one percent reported their presence to some extent; and
twelve percent reported their presence to a great extent (See
Table 2.34).
Table 2.34. Presence of Underlying Issues Outside the
Official Agenda [52]
Underlying Issues Percent
Not Present at All 38%
Present to a Small Extent 30%
Present to Some Extent 21%
Present to a Great Extent 12%
2.6.2.4 Lack of Control
The Harrison-Hofstra Study found that participants clearly
understand what they are supposed to do in only one out of
four meetings [79]. The 3M Study [52 ] and Mosvick and
Nelson [53] report that almost fifty percent of the time spent in
meetings is wasted due to information loss, information
distortion, sub-optimal decision making, and meeting
mismanagement. The Harrison-Hofstra Survey found that
management experience does not appreciably improve the
ability to hold productive meetings [79]. Chairmen, CEOs and
Presidents with an average of twenty years of meeting
experience report that twenty-eight percent of time they spend
in meetings in nonproductive, while middle managers report
that thirty-five percent of their meeting time is nonproductive
[79]. Table 2.35 shows reported percentages of nonproductive
meeting time by managerial function.
Table 2.35. Percentage of Nonproductive Meeting Time by
Managerial Function [21, 79]
Management
Function
% Unproductive
Time
General Management 29.7
Human Resources 31.9
Sales/Marketing 33.6
Manufacturing 34.9
Finance 38.7
Overall Average 33.4
2.7 Why Add technology to meetings?
There are several reasons why adding technology to meetings
may improve productivity. First, research shows that meetings
dominate most workers time. Second, workers anticipate
technological changes in meetings. Third, a variety of
augmented meeting support (AMS) technologies [49, 50] exist
that may improve productivity including 3-Dimensional multi-
imaging [42], Video teleconferencing [76], television/film,
both technology and actual content [73] and automated group
support systems [59, 82]. Finally, technological innovations
have been shown to improve productivity in both lab and field
settings.
Previous sections of this article present data from meeting
surveys and use of time studies that show that meetings
increasingly dominate knowledge work. Panko and Kinney
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 10
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

[69] argue that given the amount of time knowledge workers
spend in meetings attention is justified in the area of
technology support for meetings. The 1998 MPI/ASAE Survey
found that at fifty-two percent (52%) technology is the most
significant anticipated area of change within meetings [44, 57].
Substantial improvements in meeting productivity through IT
have been demonstrated through research at Claremont
University, Georgia Institute of Technology, London School of
Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University
of Georgia, University of Indiana, University of Arizona,
University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, New Jersey
Institute of Technology, and many other institutions [12, 16,
32, 60, 65, 70, 91, 94]. Additionally several major
corporations have invested significantly in GSS technology
including American Airlines, American Express, Boeing,
Dupont, EDS, The Internal Revenue Service, IBM, and Procter
and Gamble [11, 22, 34, 37, 46, 47, 62, 65, 72, 93]. Smith
[82] points out that use of GSS technology at IBM resulted in a
fifty-six percent (56%) savings in the number of man-hours.
2.8 Telework, Telecommuting and Virtual Meetings
“Teleworking: ANY form of substitution of information
technologies (such as telecommunications and computers)
for work related travel.”Jack Nilles [58]
“Telecommuting: moving the work to the workers instead of
moving workers to work; periodic work out of a central
office, one or more days per week either at home or in a
telework center.” Jack Nilles [58]
Remote or “telework” was most likely invented in 1857 by J.
Edgar Thompson of Penn Railroad, when he used private
telegraph lines to manage remote divisions [17, 41]. Jack
Nilles [58] coined the term “telecommuting” in the early
1970s. Since the Mid 1950’s US manufacturing employment
has steadily declined [58]. As of 1990 less than 1 in 3.7
workers held jobs in manufacturing or repair trades and less
than 1 in 54 Americans worked on farms. At the same time
sixty to eighty percent (60-80%) of the workforce was
comprised of information or knowledge workers, whose work
involves the creation, collation, manipulation, transformation,
and/or dissemination of information or from their operation of
IT [53, 58.] Nilles [58] estimates that seventy percent (70% or
~50 million in 1994) of the U.S. information workforce could
work remotely at least part of the time, however he points out
that today only 3.5% of the total workforce works outside the
traditional office.
Panko [67] suggests that stand-alone computer support
dominated in the 1980's due to technology limits and lack of
critical mass of technology users, not due to a lack of need or
interest in interacting. Studies [29, 84] have shown that
computers have penetrated over eighty percent (80%) of
desktops. In 1993 most telecommuters were home-based only
part of the time and estimates of the number ranged from 3
million to 20 million, with about 600,000 in Southern
California alone. [58] It has been estimated that over sixty (60)
million Americans will work at home by the year 2000 [63].
(See Table 2.36.) Link Resources, a New York City-based
research company, estimates that the sixty (60) million mark
will be achieved by the end of 1998, which would be an
increase of thirty-six percent (35%) over 1994 figures [6.]
Table 2.36 estimates of Telecommuters [63]
Yea
r
Millions Work Conditions
199? 4.2 Telework full time
1995 39.0 Work part-time at
home
2000 60.0 Will work at home
Unofficial telework, that is uncompensated overtime work
done at home, may be widespread, as evidenced by a survey by
Modern Office Technology magazine which found that ninety-
five percent of readers that responded reported that they
sometimes work overtime at home and thirty-nine percent do
so every week [41]. Finally David Woolley's web roster of
synchronous and asynchronous communication and
collaboration systems [98]available for use over the Internet
lists 148 products as of Oct 20, 1999
Summary
This paper illustrates that several decades of studies reveal
meetings are indeed very costly in both terms money and time.
Studies also reveal that in general meetings are unproductive
and wasteful. Studies find that meetings suffer from a myriad
of problems, making managers and workers alike dissatisfied
with the process and the outcomes in many cases. These same
studies reveal that meetings are essential to accomplish tasks
that individuals cannot complete by themselves. Finally the
review suggests that both telework and distributed
collaboration support are increasing in frequency and
importance.
References
1. 3M Meeting Management Team, and Drew, J. Mastering meetings :
discovering the hidden potential of effective business meetings. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
2.Auger, B.Y. How to run more effective business meetings. New
York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1964.
3.Auger, B.Y. How to run better business meetings a reference guide
for managers the 3M Meeting Management Team. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1987.
4.Bales, R.F., and Strodtbeck, F. L. Phases in group problem solving.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 1951, 485-495.
5.Bales, R.F. In conference. Harvard Business Review, 32, 2, 1954,
44-50.
6.Bredin, A. The virtual office survival handbook : what
telecommuters and entrepreneurs need to succeed in
today's nontraditional workplace. New York, NY: J. Wiley, 1996.
7.Burleson, C.W. Effective meetings : the complete guide. New York:
Wiley, 1990.
8.Carter, L.F., Haythorn, F. W., Meirowitz, B., & Lanzetta, J. The
relation of categorizations and ratings in the observation of group
behavior. Human Relations, 4, 1951, 239-254.
9.Dawe, H.C. The influence of the size of kindergarten group upon
performance. Child Development, 5, 1934, 295-303.
10.Dealer, C.P. Study Says Meetings Waste Precious Time - From
Reuter Wire Report, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland, OH,
March 31, 1989 1989, 15C.
11.Dennis, A.R., Heminger, A. R., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., and Vogel,
D. R. Bringing automated support to large groups: The Burr-Brown
experience. Information and Management, 18, 3, 1990, 111-121.
12.Dickson, G.W., Poole, M. S., and DeSanctis, G. An overview of the
GDSS research project and the SAMM system, in R. P. Bostrom,
Watson, R. T. and Kinney, S. T., ed., Computer augmented teamwork:
A guided tour, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.
13.Doyle, M., & Straus, D. How to make meeting work: the new
interaction method. New York, NY: Jove Books, 1982.
14.Drucker, P. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper & Row,
1967.
15.Erickson, M., Meetings. Available:
http://www.catalog.com/napmsv/meet.htm. 1998.
16.Fjermestad, J., and Hiltz, S. R. Experimental studies of group
decision support systems: an assessment of variables studied and
methodology, in Proceedings of Thirtieth Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hi, 1997, 45-53.
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 11
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

17.Garrison, W.L., & Deakin, E. Travel, Work, and
Telecommunications: A view of the electronics revolution and its
potential impacts. Transatlantic Research A, 22A, 4, 1988, 239-245.
18.Gibb, J.R. The effects of group size and of threat reduction upon
creativity in a problem-solving situation. American Psychologist, 6,
1951, 324.
19.Goffman, E. Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961.
20.Goldhaber, G.M. Organizational Communication. Dubuque, IA:
William C. Brown, 1974.
21.Green, W.A., & Lazarus, H. Are today's executives meeting with
success? Journal of management development, 10, 1, 1991, 14-25.
22.Grohowski, R., McGoff, C., Vogel, D., Martz, W. B., Jr., and
Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. Implementing electronic meeting systems at IBM:
lessons learned and success factors. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 14, 4, 1990, 368-383.
23.Hackman, J.R., & Kaplan, R. E. Interventions into group process:
an approach to improving the effectiveness of groups. Decision
Sciences, 5, 1974, 459-480.
24.Hall, J. Lost on the Moon. Psychology Today, November, 1971,
51.
25.Hall, J. Americans know how to be productive if managers will let
them. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 3, 1994, 33-46.
26.Hamann, J. Turning meetings into all win situations. Personnel
Administrator, 31, 6, 1986, 62-63.
27.Hare, A.P. A study of interaction and consensus in different sized
groups. American Sociological Review, 17, 1952, 261-267.
28.Hare, A.P. Group Size. American Behavioral Scientist, 24, 5, 1981,
695-708.
29.Harris, L., and Associates 1987 Office environment index, ,
Steelcase Corporation, Cited in Information Center Magazine, "Who
really cares about computers?", January 1988 1988.
30.Hildreth, R.A. The essentials of meeting management. Engelwood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.
31.Hill, G.W. Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads
better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3, 1982, 517-539.
32.Hiltz, S.R., Turoff, M., and Johnson, K. Experiments in group
decision Making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process
in pen name and real name computer conferences. Decision Support
Systems, 5, 1989, 217-232.
33.Hoffman, L.R. Group problem solving, in L. Berkowitz, ed.,
Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 2, New York, NY:
Academic Press, 1965.
34.Hollenbeck, P., IBM experiences with TeamFocus. 1991, IBM.
35.Huber, G.P. Issues in the design of group decision support systems.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 8, 3, 1984, 195-204.
36.James, J. A preliminary study of the size determinant in small
group interaction. American sociological review, 16, 1951, 474-477.
37.Jarvenpaa, S.L., Rao, V. S., and Huber, G. P. Computer support for
meetings of groups working on unstructured problems: a field
experiment . Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12, 4,
1988, 645-666.
38.Kayser, T.A. Mining group gold: how to cash in on the
collaborative brain power of a group. 1st ed., El Segundo, CA: Serif
Publishing, 1990.
39.Kayser, T.A. Mining group gold: how to cash in on the
collaborative brain power of a group. 2nd ed., Chicago, IL: Irwin,
1995.
40.Kieffer, G.D. The strategy of meetings : the tactics and techniques
of making things go your own way. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1988.
41.Kugelmass, J. Telecommuting : a manager's guide to flexible work
arrangements. New York, NY: Lexington Books, 1995.
42.Lester, K. 3D can add a whole new dimension to your meeting.
Sales & marketing management in Canada, 28, 8, 1987, 26-27.
43.Lovett, P.D. Meetings that work: plans bosses can approve.
Harvard Business Review, 66, 6, 1988, 60-64.
44.Management, A. Meetings Gain Momentum. Association
management, 49, 12, 1997, 59.
45.Marriot, R. Size of working group and output. Occupational
Psychology, 23, 1949, 47-57.
46.Martz, W.B., Jr., Vogel, D. R., and Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. Electronic
meetings systems: results from field. Decision Support Systems, 8, 2,
1992, 141-158.
47.McGoff, C., Hunt, Vogel, D.R., and Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. IBM's
experiences with GroupSystems. Interfaces, 6, 1990, 39-52.
48.McKenzie, R.A. The time trap. New York: NY: McGraw Hill,
1972.
49.Meyer, N.D., & Bulyk, J. C. Augmented meeting support:
increasing executive effectiveness. Information strategy: the
executive's journal, 2, 2, 1986, 24-29.
50.Meyer, N.D., & Bulyk, J. C. Increasing meeting effectiveness
through augmented support. Journal of information systems
management, 2, 3, 1986, 63-67.
51.Mintzberg, H. The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper
& Row, 1973.
52.Monge, P.R., McSween, C., & Wyer, J. A profile of meetings in
corporate America: results of the 3M meeting effectiveness study, ,
Annenberg school of communications, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA, 1989.
53.Mosvick, R., & Nelson, R. We've got to start meeting like this! a
guide to successful business meeting management. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman, 1987.
54.Mosvick, R.K. Communication practices of managers and technical
professionals in four large scale high technology industries, in
Proceedings of Proceedings of Speech Communication Association
National Convention, Louisville, KY, 1982.
55.Mosvick, R.K., Communication practices of managers and
technical professionals in four large scale high technology industries:
an update. 1986, Macalester College, St. Paul, MN.
56.MPI, F., Meeting Professionals International Industry Facts. 1998,
Available: www.mpiweb.org/facts.htm.
57.MPI, N., MPI Newsroom; the results 1998 MPI/ASAE Meetings
Outlook Survey. 1997, http://www2.mpiweb.org/nr/072.htm.
58.Nilles, J.M. Making telecommuting happen : a guide for
telemanagers and telecommuters. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1994.
59.Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Vogel, D.R., Heminger, A. R., Martz, W.
B.,Jr.,, Grohowski, R., and McGoff, C. Experiences at IBM with group
support systems: a field study. Decision Support Systems, 5, 2, 1989,
183 - 196.
60.Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. The MIS research program at the University of
Arizona, in Proceedings of Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1989, 852-862.
61.Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R.,
and George, J. F. Electronic meeting systems to support group work:
theory and practice at Arizona. Communications of the ACM, 34, 7,
1991, 40-61.
62.Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D.R.,
and George, J. F. Group support systems research: experience from the
lab and field, in L. M. Jessup, and Valacich, J. S., ed., Group Support
Systems: New Perspectives, New York, NY: McMillan Publishing
Company, 1993, 125-145.
63.Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., and Briggs, R. O. Information technology and
its organizational impact. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 13, 3, 1996-97, 3-6.
64.Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D., and
Balthazard, P. B. Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems
research: a discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 13, 3, 1996-97, 163-207.
65.Nunamaker, J.F.J., Vogel, D. R., Heminger, A., Martz, B.,
Grohowski, R., McGoff, C. Experiences at IBM with group support
systems: a field study. Decision Support Systems, 5, 2, 1989, 183-196.
66.Oppenheim, L. making meetings matter: a report to the 3M
corporation, , Wharton Center for Applied Research, 1989.
67.Panko, R.R. Extending use of time studies, in Proceedings of
Proceedings of the twenty-fifth Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Kauai, HI, 1992, 60-68.
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 12
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

68.Panko, R.R. Managerial communication patterns. Journal of
organizational computing, 2, 1, 1994, 95-122.
69.Panko, R.R., and Kinney, S. T. Meeting profiles: Size, duration,
and locations, in Proceedings of Proceedings of the twenty-eight
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 1995,
1002-1011.
70.Pinsonneault, A., and Kraemer, K. L. The impact of technology on
groups: An assessment of the empirical research. Decision Support
Systems, 5, 2, 1989, 197-216.
71.Poole, M.S. Procedures for managing meetings: social and
technological innovation, in R. A. Swanson, and Knapp, B. O., ed.,
Innovative meeting management, Austin, TX: 3M Meeting
Management Institute, 1991, 53-110.
72.Post, B. Building the business case for group support technology, in
Proceedings of Proceedings of the Twenty Fifth Annual Hawaii
International Conference on Systems Science, Maui, Hawaii, 1992,
34-45.
73.Restuccio, D.J. The media Message. Successful Meetings, 34, 4,
1985, 34-46.
74.Rice, A.K. The use of unrecognized cultural mechanisms in an
expanding machine shop. Human Relations, 4, 1951, 143-160.
75.Rice, P.L. Making minutes count. Business Horizons, 1973, 18-20.
76.Rosetti D. K., S., T. J. Video teleconferencing and performance.
Journal of Business Communication, 22, 4, 1985, 25-31.
77.Schwartzman, H.B. The meeting : gatherings in organizations and
communities. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.
78.Shaw, M.E. Group dynamics : the psychology of small group
behavior. 3rd. ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.
79.Sheridan, J.H. A $37 billion waste, Industry Week, Vol. 238, No.
17, September 4, 1989, 11-12.
80.Simmel, G. The number of members as determining the
sociological form of the group. American Journal of Sociology, 8,
1902-03, 1-46; 158-196.
81.Slater, P.E. Contrasting correlates of group size. Sociometry, 21, 2,
1958, 129-139.
82.Smith, S.M. Managing your meetings for a "bottom line" payoff, in
R. A. Swanson, and Knapp, B. O., ed., Innovative meeting
management, Austin, TX: 3M Meeting Management Institute, 1991,
19-34.
83.South, E.B. Some psychological aspects of committee work.
Journal of applied psychology, 20, 1927, 300-310.
84.Steelcase Office environment index, 1989 summary report, ,
Steelcase Corporation, 1989.
85.Taylor, D.W., & Faust, W. L. Twenty questions: Efficiency in
problem solving as a function of group size. Journal of experimental
psychology, 44, 1952, 360-368.
86.Taylor, F.W. Group Management. Transactions of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 24, 1903, 337-352.
87.Tillman, R. Problems in review: committees on trial. Harvard
Business Review, 47, May-June, 1960, 162-172.
88.Triplett, N. The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and
competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 1989, 507-533.
89.Tropman, J.E., & Morningstar, G. Meetings: how to make them
work for you. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold company, 1985.
90.Tubbs, S.L. A systems approach to small group interaction. 3rd
ed., New York: Random House, 1984.
91.Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A. R., and Connolly, T. Idea generation in
computer-based groups: a new ending to an old story. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 3, 1994, 488-467.
92.Van de Ven, A.H. An applied experimental text of alternative
decision making process. Kent, OH: Center for business and economic
research press, 1973.
93.Vogel, D.R., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Martz, W. B., Jr., Grohowski,
R., and McGoff, C. Electronic meeting system experience at IBM.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 6, 3, 1989-90, 25-43.
94.Wagner, G.R., Wynne, B. E., and Mennecke, B. E. Group support
systems: facilities and software, in L. M. Jessup, and Valacich, J. S.,
ed., Group support systems: New perspectives, New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1993, 192-213.
95.Watson, G.B. Do groups think more efficiently than individuals?
Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 23, 1928, 328-336.
96.Webster, WWWebster Dictionary. 1998, Merriam Webster:
Available : http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.
97.Wilkinson, R. We're running too many meetings in this place.
Supervision, 49, 10, 1988, 14-16.
98.Woolley, D.R., Conferencing Software for the Web. 1999,
Available at http://thinkofit.com/webconf/.
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 13
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001